New avenues in communication evaluation and measurement (E&M): towards a research agenda for the 2020s

Abstract

Guest editorial 1. New avenues in communication evaluation and measurement (E&M): towards a research agenda for the 2020s 1.1 Introduction The question of how public relations and strategic communication contribute to organisations' success has been a perennial research topic since the 1970s (Stacks, 2017; Gregory and Watson, 2008; Grunig, 2006). Specifically, this question is approached in the sub-field of communication E&M. For more than five decades, scholars have explored how communication effects can be measured alongside different stages (ranging, e.g., from inputs and outputs to outcomes and impacts) and how the value of communication added to the organisational level can be evaluated. According to a recent synthesis of 40 years of literature (Volk, 2016), E&M research has explored numerous questions that can be broadly clustered into the following overarching themes: how to analyse the effectiveness of communication and messages on the output level; how to measure outcomes such as relationships and reputation; how to conceptualise intangible values or capitals and assess the value creation through communication on the impact level; how to further develop E&M methods; and how to assess the state of E&M practices. As an applied research field, E&M scholars have maintained regular and close relations to the communication industry. Hence, there was and still is a lively and unique exchange between academia and practice (cf. Buhmann et al., 2018). Pioneering scholars, some of them former professionals (earlier on, e.g., Walter Lindenmann, Don Stacks, David Michaelson, Donald Wright or Tom Watson, more recently, e.g., Jim Macnamara or Ansgar Zerfass), have stimulated an vital knowledge transfer with international and national membership organisation (e.g. the International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC)), E&M consultancies and client organisations, and various task forces or commissions (e.g. the Institute for Public Relations Measurement Commission, or the International Task Force on Standardisation of Communication Planning/Objective Setting and Evaluation/Measurement Models). Particularly, the last decade saw a considerable amount of collaborative projects, searching for more standardised models, metrics, and methods to advance E&M practices (e.g. recently, AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework, Barcelona Principles 2.0, Social Media Measurement Standards Conclave, DPRG ICV Framework). However, according to a wide range of studies conducted worldwide to explore the state of E&M in the communication practice, the implementation of such E&M methods and standard metrics focussing on communication outcomes and impact remains low (

The Fall and Rise of Strategic Lobbying: Ten Myths About the Government Relations Activity

“…This way, the more the lobbying area focus on the holistic (tangible or intangible) results obtained, not simply carried out activities or isolated numbers, the better. Also, it helps to set up targets and communicate them based on the Barcelona 2.0 principles (Volk and Buhmann, 2019), i.e. (i) should address who, what, when and how much the action in intended to affect; (ii) measure outcomes instead of outputs on overall organization performance, including reputation and social media repercussion; (iii) in a transparent, consistent, valid and replicable manner.…”

Viestinnän mittaaminen ja strateginen viestintä

“…Loogisiin malleihin perustuvaa viestinnän mittaamista ja arviointia on kuvattu kriitti seen sävyyn "funktionalistiseksi, positivisti seksi ja normatiiviseksi" (Volk & Buhmann 2019). Määrällinen mittaaminen hallitsee ja se on usein yhdistetty taloudelliseen tulokseen (Zerfass 2008;Volk 2016;Macnamara 2014;Volk & Buhmann 2019).…”

“…Loogisiin malleihin perustuvaa viestinnän mittaamista ja arviointia on kuvattu kriitti seen sävyyn "funktionalistiseksi, positivisti seksi ja normatiiviseksi" (Volk & Buhmann 2019). Määrällinen mittaaminen hallitsee ja se on usein yhdistetty taloudelliseen tulokseen (Zerfass 2008;Volk 2016;Macnamara 2014;Volk & Buhmann 2019). Volkin (2016) tuoreen 1980luvulta alkavan katsauksen mukaan 78 % vertaisarvioiduista M&E:a käsittelevistä artik keleista edusti funktionalistista paradigmaa ja osuus on vain kasvanut tieteellisessä julkaisemi sessa vuoden 2005 jälkeen.…”

Вимірювання Ефективності PR-діяльності: Варіативність Критеріїв Та Підходів

“…Серед закордонних науковців, що приділяли значну увагу вимірюванню та оцінюванню стратегічних комунікацій взагалі та PR зокрема, зазначимо таких: A. Buhmann [1], A. Gregory [2], J. Grunig, K. Hallahan, W. Lindenmann [3], F. Likely, J. Macnamara [4], P. Noble, B. van Ruler, T. Watson [5], A. Zerfass та ін. Серед вітчизняних дослідників слід відзначити А. Бондаренко, В. Королька, О. Курбана, Т. Примак, А. Рибака, Ю. Шафаренко, К. Ягельську.…”